Sanctions - Rule 60b. Is for final judgment only not duscovery/ 60b is not appropriate way to do this. However will liberally construe Rule 37. Doc relevance - was about copyright/defenses, but this not that. Based on 37a5 - failure to disclose is egregious so too bad.
Hardin - Greer said he had an RO. Greer interrupted, got shot down. Hardin has documentation RO was denied but hasnt seen underlying allegations. Got nothing from Greer but a public records request denial. Hardin then has case number but didn't get evidence of granted RO so Greer has not complied with motion to compel. Court said thanks, I did not know that. Now is asking Greer wtf. Greer said I told Hardin on the phone I didn't gave access. "Bizarrely " someone then asked for docs thru public request so Greer thinks it means someone was listening. Greer said he never said he had an RO, probably fat phone fingers. CT asked why he doesn't even have access to own court records. Greer said phone had no room abd Hardin never asked again. CT criticizing Greer for not trying to get docs - "of concern" to court/ why haven't you asked court for it. Greer: he didn't ask. CT - he filed a motion! Greer / I forgot to reply. CT - you got notice couldn't access via motion to compel. "Help me understand what I'm missing.". Greer / I'm sorry and also not relevant. CT: you're all wrong and missed chance to argue relevance - by months. CT thought Greer was trying but haven't even tried. Not acceptable. 14 days to get the case file, mark confidential and give to Hardin. Also CT: if that shows up online there will be contempt sanctions.
Attys fees: reserved ruling on rule 37. 21 days for Hardin to call status conf. Hardin does not agree to Greer version of facts. CT- OK but Greer needs to produce docs. If he just doesn't feel like it we're talking case-ending sanctions.
Rule 11 - Steve Taylor. Hardin setting record straight on Greer-Taylor interaction. CT- why say Taylor eager if hadn't talked in years. Greer: listed everyone, should have made sure he was alive before saying that. Lol. Hardin - Greer responded to something else but either way fails bc no dye diligence. Rule 11 is objective - statement caused prejudice. CT - let's talk prejudice. Tell me more. Hardin - G moved to go back to Utah bc Steve Taylor needed to testify. Transfer transferred after that tho not specifically on that basis. Then G disclosed different witnesses, we pursued, G said no to those and had no other witnesses. H tried to find Taylor, motion for adverse inference. Then G mentioned falling out so even more relevant. Can't find him, then finds out dead from G. Is prejudicial to case and legal system and G's plaintiff behavior so sanctionable. G: H latches onto words I say and not entire argument. No prejudice bc Josh doesn't live in FL abd hasn't for a long time. H hasn't said where J lives so not prejudicial. As for ST I misspoke. Unaware dead but dad/bro said would testify. But once back to UT, said they had nothing to offer. G to bro: you jerk. Included those text messages! They're latching onto ST. CT: will take rule 11 under advisement and issue written order. CT goes through analysis will use, asks Hardin for input on what sanctions should be. H - tough question. Minimum: attys' fees Re ST but...missed the rest due to audio problem. G - Josh needs to provide address. G - Josh is a menace, must stop him. CT - understand why pursuing legal action but must do per law. Can't lie to the court, need some basis/ investigation. So that's crux of rule 11 issue. Will issue order.